I think so, should we allow a fundamental muslim not to enroll his daughter in school because he feels it's his religious duty not to? What about
Satanists? Should they be allowed to make their children attend dark sexually oriented rituals that may harm the child mentally because it's their
freedom to do so?
Unfortunately..I think so, yes. It's not right, but it's the only feasible option, given our choices. We can choose to impose our view on everyone
else, or we can simply promote our own views and hope they stick, through education, not legislation.
If, in time, the system is to change, it won't be because of parents arrested for 'abusing' their children, it will be from a steady decay of those
ludicrous institutions most of us find so insane and distasteful. Myself and a few other people don't like the fact that relgions continue to exert
their corrupting influence, but short of outlawing religion, how are we to possibly change the reality we're facing?
The same goes for parents who allow their children to be eaten alive by disease.
What about spontaneous remission? What about the power of prayer? It's been proven yaknow. What about the right to die with dignity? These are
all aspects of this case overlooked in the fervor of our instinct to protect children from harm.
In my mind, the parents retain the ability to define harm, and they retain the right to protect their child from it wherever they perceive it. If
they think television harms their kids, they should have the power to turn it off. Some would say that's insane, that the parents are obviously just
relgious wackos, but I disagree.
I know it's a big difference, I'm just trying to make a point about the perception of harm, and how it varies drastically from person to person. I
perceive radiation as more harmful that cancer in many cases, it all depends on the inteligence and integrity of the doctor. I don't question the
credentials of the physician, but neither am I comfortable questioning the parents loyalty to their child.
I think they deserve the benefit of the doubt, after all, it's their child we're talking about. Some parents are sick in the head, they don't
perceive the world correctly. Often times children suffer and die because of the negligence or other failings of their parents. It's been that way
since the beginning of time.
When the mother crocodile wanders off, the nest becomes vulnerable. Generation after generation, attentive mothers produce more viable offspring, and
less attentive mothers produce fewer viable offspring. In that way, attentive mothers are advanced, evolutionarily speaking, while inattentive ones
are harmed. The species is refined in this manner.
I'm not saying I like it, I'm just pointing out that it's a fact of life. Did you know Hawaiians used to crush the skulls of infants with a rock
if the child bore a birthmark? I see this as a crime, very different than the case of these folks we're talking about. In this case, real harm can
be seen coming from both choices, radiation or cancer. They made a choice.
I think we have to respect that, and we have to respect the brave little girl who spoke up for herself. Maybe she isn't old enough to know better,
but maybe she is.
That's a tough call, but if the child is going to die without treatment and the parents refuse treatment based on religious beliefs, then no I
First of all, we don't know the child will die without radiation. Secondly, we don't know the radiation won't kill her. Finally, the parents have
said their objection has more to do with parental rights and medical concerns, rather than relgious beliefs based on unsubstantiated dogma.
I don't know if the parents are telling the truth, but I do know I share their concerns regarding the treatment.
I've never seen children handling the snakes, but if they were, then somebody should step in. Those people also drink strichnyne, should they allow
their children to do that too? If there were non-religious parents knowingly letting their children drink deadly poison, everybody would be outraged,
you know that.
It happens, I've seen video. I suppose it could have been staged, since it was Faces of Death, but I thought it looked real enough. Who knows
though? In any case, anyone dumb enough to drink poison deserves what they get. Anyone dumb enough to feed poison to their children deserve to have
their genetic legacy erased like so much gibberish on the chalkboard.
Pretty much all of us have had family members die of cancer, and many treatments carry the risk of side effects. I'm sorry to hear it didn't help
your mother, but it has helped many others, and as of right now, radiation is many people's last hope.
Yeah, it's entirely too common. The underlying causes NEED to be adressed, and we MUST take more care in the diagnosis, in order to better
understand each individual expression of the disease. It does help some people, granted. Probably it helps more people than it hurts. However, in
the end, I don't feel it's my business to calculate risk and assign behaviors to people other than myself.
If I see someone beating their wife on the street, I'll stop them, because the behavior offends me. If I see someone beating their children, I'll
teach them to pick on people their own size. I really believe this case is different than that. I don't think the parents are trying to hurt their
child, I'm pretty sure they want what's best for her.
They disagree with the doctor about what's best, and that's a pretty common occurence around the world.
Now, in the end, I also believe it's the choice of the patient whether or not to receive any given treatment. In this case, it's the responsibility
of the legal guardians, since this is a minor we're talking about. The legal guardians are supposed to be the parents, but the state of Texas has
just thrown that assumption into question.
What Texas is essentially saying is that it has final say regarding medical treatment administered to people in the state. I think that's a gross
misuse of child abuse laws, and a ridiculous leap of (probably) well intentioned logic. The state wants to be a nanny, and as much as I detest that
fact, I can't do much to stop it.
Now, being a nanny is one thing..but being a parental authority is an entirely different story. Just ask yourself, do you want to raise your child,
or do you want the state to do it for you?
If your answer is the former, we're in agreement, and you simply haven't considered the precedent this case sets. If your answer is the latter,
I'd say you probably think you have better things to do, in which case you don't have the proper mindset to raise children.
This isn't a personal attack, please don't misunderstand. I just feel that people who can't be bothered to raise their own children shouldn't
have had the kids in the first place. How many parents speak to their kids only to yell at them? How many use the TV/Computer as a babysitter? How
many aren't around when the kid needs them? How many waste money on drugs and possessions and vacations while the child shivers in the cold, damp
More than we'd like. We have laws for punishing those parents who care more about their own petty selfishness than they do about their kids. The
state takes in crack baby after crack baby, and for good reason.
I don't think this girl should be treated like a crack baby. Her parents seem to love her very much, and are just trying to do what's best for her.